And by the by, I didn't mean to post that as a whine-fest, but the posts were talking about people sayign religions were false, untrue or fake or whatnot. Just thought I"d add this in for a bit of clarification.

It is tough to have a friend that you don't see eye to eye on certain things. I have a very close friend who I don't see eye to eye on various topics, but we choose to not discuss them and we are good. However, that's too bad to hear that about your friend, Tameless. I hope he changes the way he interacts with you, for your friendship's sake.

I taught Father Tom Hartman how to say the prayer over bread in Hebrew,and he taught me how to say the Lord's Prayer, the Pater Noster inLatin. It was not a fair trade. The Lord's Prayer is one of the mostperfect prayers ever written, and the prayer over bread, the motzi, is--well -- a prayer over bread.

Um,,,,,,,excuse me? Am I reading this wrong? Is he saying that CHRISTIAN prayers are for some reason MORE perfect than Jewish prayers?

Oh Please,,,,gag me with a spoon,,,,this guy seems to be implying that hes a Jew

Asto your question, Jews can pray this prayer. I do so myself, or whenothers pray it, I answer "Amen," which means I trust it is true.

but I'm having a tough time believing it,,,,Who IS this dude,,,,,,he sounds more Christian than Jewish,,,,,

Sorry, the future jew in me had to react to that,,,,,

but more to your point,,,,,,the complete lack of respect for other faiths does tend to "leak out" somewhere, doesn't it?????

If he's Jewish, I'll be shocked right off my chair, frankly,,,,,,,but,,,,,yes, there ARE some bad Jews out there,,,,sigh,,,,we don't deny them. We pray for them,,,,,,and sick Jewish mother guilt on them

If seems that if this guy is a Jew, he must be a Messianic Jew, or worse one of Friend!'s Jews for Jesus. There is nothing wrong with the "Lord's" Prayer, but nothing specifically Christian about it either.

That's because the author was an apocalyptic Jew and the Jews have always been monotheistic. Whether Christians are can be debated. After all, they have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and 1+1+1≠1.

My whole point was that it really doesn't say a lot to me, as a monotheist prayer. So any one calling it the greatest prayer, well, that's great, that it fits into their UPG. But it doesn't speak to me, at all. Because my UPG is totally different. And it is hard for some people to get their heads around that.

That's because the author was an apocalyptic Jew and the Jews have always been monotheistic. Whether Christians are can be debated. After all, they have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and 1+1+1≠1.

Ah, well, the early Israelites were polytheists. El/Ilu, Athirat/Asherah, Ba'al, Yahweh, and a couple o' others were recognized in the pantheon. As the Davidic line grew in power, the Yahweh cult of which it was part came to be elevated over the rest (with Yahweh displacing Ba'al and getting conflated with El and so forth).

Is it actual history? Where is such information found? I mean, because it seems that all anyone ever had to go on (for centuries, it seems) is just the text found in the Old Testament, . . . and their one God. Is the information you mention credible? If it IS, . . . then yes, it WOULD be very fascinating!

That's because the author was an apocalyptic Jew and the Jews have always been monotheistic. Whether Christians are can be debated. After all, they have the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and 1+1+1≠1.

My whole point was that it really doesn't say a lot to me, as a monotheist prayer. So any one calling it the greatest prayer, well, that's great, that it fits into their UPG. But it doesn't speak to me, at all. Because my UPG is totally different. And it is hard for some people to get their heads around that.

There's no way I'd consider it the greatest prayer ever. Then again, I don't believe there is such a thing as the "greatest prayer." There are far too many varied belief systems for one prayer to stand out above all others.

Wow, this thread has bopped all over the place ... I sort of want to dive in and sort of want to just leave it alone. I think I'll step a toe in and try to not cause any ripples....

SG, you know I love you (((((SG))))) but you threw me off with the title of this thread being about *embracing* Pater Noster. It seems more like a vent fest than an attept to actually embrace what this prayer has to offer. Perhaps the thread is more about the opinion of one writer than Pater Noster itself (?) I don't know that writer and am indifferent to his opinions, however, I do know and care about Pater Noster, so my post will be from this perspective alone.

Really I think it's easy to get caught up in all the details and miss the point of the Lord's Prayer, miss the point of the trinity, heck, miss the point of Christianity all together. The point of it all is not about 'being right' (whatever that is) It's about sacrifice... sacrifice and self-surrender which is very similar, if you ask me, to Yoga's *Ishvara pranidhana* (the Yoga practice I offer my students is one of total sattvic surrender (rendering the ego powerless) Christianity, at least in the Lutheran tradition, has the ability to offer the same.)

Someone on this thread brought up the Trinity which, in turn, brought to my mind the words of another poster on another site. I'd like to share what he wrote regarding the Trinity as the notion to be embraced here is the same notion we can embrace in the Lord's Prayer as well as in Christianity itself:

"I think one of the fundamental aspects of the Holy Trinity is that part of their perichoresis is mutual offering love, i.e. a kenotic love. The Father eternally gives Himself to His Son (even His own eternity and deity); and thus reciprocally the Son is always giving Himself to the Father, in obedience: this self-giving of the Son includes the Son's incarnation as Jesus Christ, and is revealed in the many statements of Christ in the Gospel of John, where He does the will of His Father. Understanding the very nature of God's Triune Self as one of perichoretic self-offering, that the Son will deliver all things to His Father is perfectly intelligible within a Trinitarian framework. The Father empties Himself into His Son, the Son empties Himself into the Father, and the Holy Spirit flows effortlessly between the Two. Or to use the Augustinian model, of Lover, Beloved and the Active Love between the Lover and the Beloved."

So in 'embracing' (learning from) the concept of the Trinity (a perichoretic relationship) one can embrace the concept of kenotic love; Self-Emptying Love; egoless love. Now turning to the Lord's prayer, we see the concept of surrendering the fight for power, surrendering the addiction to be *right* ..... surrendering it all (egolessness), instead asking (in humility) simply for enough simply to live and to love. And while Seventhcrow finds the line "Forgive us our debts" to be repugnant, I'd like to draw your attention to the next line "as we forgive our debtors" Meaning that we are wrenching open the heart and mind before God asking that the same measure of grace we offer to strangers be what we ask to receive from God; nothing more. (IE, we are back to egolessness.)

Summing up, in this tiny prayer one finds concepts of Aparigraha (non-hoarding) Ahimsa (non-violence) and Ishvara Pranidhana (surrender to God) which really are universal concepts. (Unless, of course, one chooses to subscribe to a faith that is violent, hoards and surrenders to noone)

......... on a different note..... I saw on this thread where someone posted the Lords Prayer in "Original Aramaic" and having a love of linguistics and history, I'd like to step in. The 'Aramaic' version is not the "original" as the 'Aramaic' version being passed around the internet was itself translated from Greek. (Christ spoke Aramaic, but not the same dialect as the "Original Aramaic" text was written in,which was used much later.) Again, while very very pretty, linguistics and scholars understand that it is not an honest translation of the original documentation.

Sakhaiva wrote:And while Seventhcrow finds the line "Forgive us our debts" to be repugnant, I'd like to draw your attention to the next line "as we forgive our debtors" Meaning that we are wrenching open the heart and mind before God asking that the same measure of grace we offer to strangers be what we ask to receive from God; nothing more. (IE, we are back to egolessness.)

I was kind of hoping somebody would hop on that.

The latter phrase in no fashion ameliorates the former. That one would forgive others has nothing to do with the moral failing of seeking forgiveness from somebody other than the one offended. To seek forgiveness from a deity for wronging a neighbor is to avoid responsibility--moral cowardice. One can only seek forgiveness from the person wronged.

And forgiving others only counts as a moral virtue if the others have sought forgiveness. Otherwise, it's only an act to benefit the self.

To laud the two without it being tied to actual virtuous action leaves me cold.

So in 'embracing' (learning from) the concept of the Trinity (a perichoretic relationship) one can embrace the concept of kenotic love; Self-Emptying Love; egoless love. Now turning to the Lord's prayer, we see the concept of surrendering the fight for power, surrendering the addiction to be *right* ..... surrendering it all (egolessness), instead asking (in humility) simply for enough simply to live and to love. And while Seventhcrow finds the line "Forgive us our debts" to be repugnant, I'd like to draw your attention to the next line "as we forgive our debtors" Meaning that we are wrenching open the heart and mind before God asking that the same measure of grace we offer to strangers be what we ask to receive from God; nothing more. (IE, we are back to egolessness.)

Summing up, in this tiny prayer one finds concepts of Aparigraha (non-hoarding) Ahimsa (non-violence) and Ishvara Pranidhana (surrender to God) which really are universal concepts. (Unless, of course, one chooses to subscribe to a faith that is violent, hoards and surrenders to noone)

Peace out y'all.

Here we have a few fundamental problems. I do not adhere to an Eastern belief with its hatred and fear of the individual and continuous need for self-abnegation. I am Asatru. I am true to the gods of my ancestors, and to their teachings. Oddly enough, they do not teach you to surrender, they do not teach you to set aside your ego, but to channel it into the service of your folk and the betterment of yourself. They are not selling forgiveness; it is not coming, so you can stop asking . You are your deeds, deal with it and move on.

Non-hoarding is a non issue. As long as you are doing your duties to your family, kinfolk, and your community, the gods wish you to know such success as your efforts may bring you. If this showers you with gold, then so be it. Gold is a test like any other. Like power, wealth is the ability to make choices. More wealth offers more choices. What you do with them is up to you.

Surrendering to the gods is ridiculous. The Feeder of Ravens is not after my submission, the Battleglad does not want me on my knees, the Tree-hanger has often tested me and yielded his wisdom only to my defiance, not my submission. Freya may teach surrender to passion but not to another's will. Thor, Tyr, Frigg, Heimdall, seem to pretty much put duty before all. They do not seek your surrender, but to see how you answer the challenges before you with the tools they have gifted you.

Non-violence? ROTFLMAO . I am a soldier, son of a soldier, grandson of a soldier. I have saved more lives than I can count, and at least as many lives are owed to the prompt skillful and utterly ruthless application of violence as are owed to my skills as a lifeguard and first aid attendant. Odin called me, he knew me as skald, he knew me as scholar, but he reached me first and deepest as warrior. I am the shield of the folk. When the innocent or defenseless are offered harm in my knowledge it is given to me to stop it. Words first, intervention of authorities next if time permits, but if nothing else works, my skills and body will determine who stands and who falls.

The prayer is pretty much a borderline between amusing and insulting, depending on whether someone is saying it, or actually attempting to force us to say it.

MaineCaptain wrote:I don't think most Christian can understand it either, They don't seem to get that people are not going to pay homage to a god that is not their own.

Would they pray to Woten? Or Isis? Then why do they expect others to pray to their god?

They can pray to Woten all they want, he's still not forgiving any trespasses, you will still be judged by the whole of your deeds. He won't forgive my trespasses either, in fact being sworn his makes him expect a higher standard; less in my prayers than in my deeds.

The Lord's prayer is not to my god, nor is it about the heavens that I know, nor are the prayers to my gods of any worth to those who expect salvation and absolution; sorry not selling or buying. Faiths are not interchangable, I would no more expect Christ than Tchernoborg to hear a prayer raised to the Sigfather, nor would I dream that my god (one among many) holds dominion over this world and all its folk. There are goddesses and gods of worth and wisdom beyond Woten even in my own pantheon, and other pantheons whose might and holiness hold rightful sway over the spirits of places and souls of folk dear and sworn to them.

There is no one right way for all, most definitly including my own.

I don't find the prayer itself offensive, but the intent of the author. I saw this enough times on another forum, and see it in real life to know that Christians figure that whichever god or goddess we as non Christian embrace, ultimately, their's is the one hiding behind a different name. It's that arrogance that I find offensive. I don't believe in a one size fits all god and I don't accept the Christian notion that there is. I don't say this to knock Christianity (as I have been accused of doing many times before), but rather just suggesting that there is more to the divine cosmos than I or anyone else can articulate, and it isn't all encompassing under the Christian umbrella.

Granted, the prayer itself is a beautiful prayer, and speaks of humility, meekness and forgiveness. However those intentions pale for someone like me when anyone suggests that I can embrace it and use it for my own. I simply can't.

DeavonReye wrote:It is tough to have a friend that you don't see eye to eye on certain things. I have a very close friend who I don't see eye to eye on various topics, but we choose to not discuss them and we are good. However, that's too bad to hear that about your friend, Tameless. I hope he changes the way he interacts with you, for your friendship's sake.

Deavon, etal;

I have found through the years that friends I have grown up with, or have known for any length of time at all, and who consider themselves to be "good Christians", that the best approach is not to argue, debate, or even discuss religion with them. We have enough things in common that it just isn't a necessary subject. We have all married, buried love ones, raised children, and become grandparents together. We have begun, and ended careers. We have so much more to talk about than whose god can beat up the other god.

DeavonReye wrote:Is it actual history? Where is such information found? I mean, because it seems that all anyone ever had to go on (for centuries, it seems) is just the text found in the Old Testament, . . . and their one God. Is the information you mention credible? If it IS, . . . then yes, it WOULD be very fascinating!

This is one of the sites I found, and there are dozens more, as well as books on the subject. http://einhornpress.com/gods.aspx

I keep it on my favorites list just for times like this.

Here is some of the context of that site:You can verify the plurality of the Hebrew god by checking any Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, or The Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments where Oxford professor of Assyriology A. H. Sayce also verified their plurality. In his learned and courageous declaration, he openly maintained:

Elohim is a plural noun, and its employment in the Old Testament as a singular has given rise to a large amount of learned discussion, and, it must also be added, of a learned want of common sense. Grammarians have been in the habit of evading the difficulty by describing it as a “pluralis majestatis,” “a plural of majesty,” or something similar, as if a term in common use which was grammatically a plural could ever have come to be treated as a singular, unless this singular had once been a plural. We can construe the word “means” with a singular verb, but nevertheless there was once a time when “means” was a plural noun.

We may take it for granted, therefore, that if the Hebrew word Elohim had not once signified the plural “gods,” it would never have been given a plural form, and the best proof of this is the fact that in several passages of the Old Testament the word is still used in a plural sense. Indeed there are one or two passages, as for example Gen. i. 26, where the word, although referring to the God of Israel, is yet employed with a plural verb, much to the bewilderment of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian commentators who followed them. It is strange how preconceived theories will cause the best scholars to close their eyes to obvious facts.

The Israelites were a Semitic people, and their history down to the age of the Exile is the history of a perpetual tendency toward polytheism. Priest and prophet might exhort and denounce, and kings might attempt to reform, but the mass of the people remained wedded to a belief in many gods. Even the most devoted adherents of the supreme God of Israel sometimes admitted that he was but supreme among other gods, and David himself, the friend of seers and prophets, complains that he had been driven out of “the inheritance of Yahveh” and told to go and “serve other gods” (1 Sam. xxvi. 19). What can be plainer than the existence of a persistent polytheism among the bulk of the people, and the inevitable traces of polytheism that were left upon the language and possibly the thoughts of the enlightened few?

Yahveh, or Yahweh, was one of only several Hebrew gods—as Sayce has just pointed out—that the ancient Jews (one tribe of the Hebrews) worshiped. The Hebrew god El (the singular form of elohim) is another. The horns on this god, and others, denote power, and a representation of him is carved into a stone monument from Ras Shamra and illustrated below. Exodus 34:14 even specifically names one of the Hebrew gods, “whose name is jealous,” and says he “is a jealous God.” Of what he is jealous, we do not know. Baal, another Semitic god from Ras Shamra, is also cut into non-flammable stone, as a durable witness for posterity, and reproduced below.

DeavonReye wrote:Is it actual history? Where is such information found? I mean, because it seems that all anyone ever had to go on (for centuries, it seems) is just the text found in the Old Testament, . . . and their one God. Is the information you mention credible? If it IS, . . . then yes, it WOULD be very fascinating!

Yes, that's actual history. I wouldn't have mentioned it were it not from a credible source (and I'll hallucinate that you're not intending to insult me with that).

CHeck out Mark Smith's _The Early History of God_ for all the scholarly goodness.

Yes, there are gazillions of credible sources out there, all of which Christians deny are accurate, or credible. All of them pretty much paint the same picture. I'm also willing to bet that SeventhCrow will agree with me on this, but a great deal of religious philosophy of the Canaanites were absorbed into Judaism too after the Jews moved into the neighborhood.

John A. Cancienne wrote:Yes, there are gazillions of credible sources out there, all of which Christians deny are accurate, or credible. All of them pretty much paint the same picture. I'm also willing to bet that SeventhCrow will agree with me on this, but a great deal of religious philosophy of the Canaanites were absorbed into Judaism too after the Jews moved into the neighborhood.

It appears that the Israelites were actually a Canaanite people, living among the other Canaanites. Prior to a specific time frame, there is no archaeological evidence that differentiates Israelite dwellings from Canaanite dwellings. The Hebrew scriptures chronicle how the Israelites differentiated themselves from the surrounding Canaanites. Much of what is decried in the scriptures as things the Israelites shouldn't do because they're Canaanite practices are regarded as having been Israelite practices that the religious elites were speaking against as part of that differentiation. So, yeah, the Israelites were a western Semitic people living among the Canaanites and culturally undifferentiated at one time.

I know that Muslims trace their lineage back to Abraham through Ishmael, and that he was married to a woman from a nomadic sect and was not considered Hebrew. Could this also include them (Muslims) as having Canaanite ancestry as well?

I'm not asking to be a wise ass, but from actual curiosity. In fact I'll tell you the reason for my question.... Given the history of Isaac and Ishmael, it gives some understanding behind what seems to be a blood fued between the two peoples.

Wow, SeventhCrow.. . . . I can see how my post looks that way. Please hallucinate away, for it was definitely not meant as an insult!

This is all very fascinating, though, because growing up in the Christian church, with the "only ONE God" as the center of the theology, this information is quite damaging to that ideology. I wonder how the typical Christian pastor rationalizes it?